Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PEP 645: Mark as Withdrawn (and as Standards Track) #2529

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Apr 15, 2022
Merged

PEP 645: Mark as Withdrawn (and as Standards Track) #2529

Changes from 6 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
fb4fc7e
PEP 645: Mark as Withdrawn (and as Standards Track)
davidfstr Apr 15, 2022
5033b30
PEP 645: Fix old reference to cpython/master branch to point to main …
davidfstr Mar 31, 2022
4570fab
PEP 645: Remove redundant footnote
davidfstr Mar 31, 2022
e35a68c
Withdrawl -> Withdrawal
davidfstr Apr 15, 2022
348031d
PEP 645: Mark source of Withdrawal clearly
davidfstr Apr 15, 2022
256f503
Wordsmith for brevity
davidfstr Apr 15, 2022
43d8a2d
Wordsmithing
davidfstr Apr 15, 2022
e98fb21
Merge branch 'main' into f/pep_645_withdraw
JelleZijlstra Apr 15, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
24 changes: 19 additions & 5 deletions pep-0645.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,17 +2,33 @@ PEP: 645
Title: Allow writing optional types as ``x?``
Author: Maggie Moss <[email protected]>
Sponsor: Guido van Rossum <[email protected]>
Status: Draft
Type: Process
Status: Withdrawn
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 25-Aug-2020
Resolution: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/E75SPV6DDHLEEFSA5MBN5HUOQWDMUQJ2/


Abstract
========
This PEP proposes adding a ``?`` operator for types to allow writing ``int?`` in place of ``Optional[int]``.


PEP Withdrawal
==============

JelleZijlstra marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
The notation ``T|None`` introduced by :pep:`604` to write ``Optional[T]`` is a
fine alternative to ``T?`` and does not require new syntax.

Using ``T?`` to mean ``T|None`` is also inconsistent with TypeScript
(a very popular language) where it roughly means ``NotRequired[T]``.
davidfstr marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Such inconsistency would likely confuse folks coming from TypeScript to Python.

The above represents the consensus of
`typing-sig <https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/>`_
and the sponsor of this PEP.


Motivation
==========
Types have become a valuable and powerful part of the Python language. However, many type annotations are verbose and add
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -118,7 +134,7 @@ Backwards Compatibility
Reference Implementation
========================

A reference implementation can be found `here <https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/master...MaggieMoss:new-optional-syntax-postfix>`_ [5].
A reference implementation can be found `here <https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/main...MaggieMoss:new-optional-syntax-postfix>`_.

Rejected Ideas
==============
Expand All @@ -136,8 +152,6 @@ References
(https://gist.github.com/MaggieMoss/fd8dfe002b2702fae243dbf81a62624e)
.. [3] Github Issue Discussion of Optional syntax
(https://github.com/python/typing/issues/429)
.. [5] Reference Implementation
(https://github.com/python/cpython/compare/master...MaggieMoss:new-optional-syntax-postfix)

Copyright
=========
Expand Down